Britain tried to downgrade its diplomatic presence in 2006, Ireland closed its embassy entirely, and Canada has had no ambassador for more than a year.

VATICAN CITY — Does the Obama administration’s plan to relocate the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See within the grounds of the American Embassy to Italy signify a downgrade in U.S.-Vatican ties?

According to the State Department, the answer is a predictable and emphatic “No.”

“Security is our top priority in making this move,” wrote Shawn Casey Nov. 27 on Dipnote, an official State Department site. The new premises, he argued, will be “safer, bigger and architecturally more appealing. It also is slightly closer to Vatican City.”

With the shift slated for completion by January 2015, the administration is at pains to point out that it has no plans to close the Holy See Embassy, as some reports have suggested.

“Nothing could be farther from the truth,” Casey insisted. “Not only does the United States continue to respect the Holy See as a crucial bilateral partner … but Secretary [John] Kerry, our first Catholic secretary of state in more than 30 years, is personally inspired by the Church’s work on issues from peace to global poverty, issues at the heart of Catholic social teaching.”

Still, that is not how some previous ambassadors to the Holy See — both Republican and Democrat — are viewing it. Former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See James Nicholson said the embassy’s planned move to the grounds of the U.S. Embassy to Italy is “another manifestation of the antipathy of this administration, both to Catholics and to the Vatican — and to Christians in the Middle East.”

“This is a key post for intermediation in so many sovereignties, but particularly in the Middle East,” Nicholson told CatholicVote.org. “This is anything but a good time to diminish the stature of this post. To diminish the stature of this post is to diminish its influence.”

Nicholson, who served as ambassador from 2001-2005 under President George W. Bush, said that the State Department has sought for years to relocate the embassy.

“It came up when I was an ambassador. I explained the folly of this, and it went away. But now they seem determined to do this,” he said.

Raymond Flynn, who served as President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the Holy See, saw the move as leading eventually to possible closure. "It’s not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists, but it’s also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See," he told the National Catholic Reporter.

Mixed Feelings

Members of Rome’s diplomatic community contacted by the Register have mixed feelings about the move. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one senior official said he felt the administration was making a mistake at a time when Pope Francis is so popular among electorates and President Barack Obama is under fire domestically following the botched Obamacare rollout.

“I think the administration will back down,” he said. “The move looks weak at a time when Obama is weak.”

But another senior diplomat was more positive, seeing the move as a sensible policy when budgets are tight and security is paramount.

“Most of our work takes place at our residences anyway, and that isn’t affected by this,” he said, as the administration has committed to maintaining a separate residence for the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. “Their new offices will also be larger and better equipped, so I don’t see any problem.”

Indeed, he suggested much of the opposition to the move was being whipped up by Republicans as a stick with which to beat the Obama administration.

Vatican officials are publicly unconcerned by the plans, even though only three of the diplomatic missions to the Holy See in Rome are on the same compound as their embassies to Italy. The rest of those in the city are separate, in order to respect the Vatican’s sovereignty.

The British Precedent

But the Obama administration’s plans are somewhat reminiscent of what happened to the British Embassy to the Holy See in 2006.

Britain’s then-Labour government was also looking to cut costs and saw its embassy to the Holy See as a prime target. Officials in London were unable to understand its significance, not least its valuable role as a “listening post” with an extensive network of contacts around the world.

Were it not for parliamentary pressure and some clever resistance from its serving ambassador, the embassy could well have closed altogether, as happened with Ireland’s Embassy to the Holy See a few years later.

Using the argument of “enhanced security,” the British Foreign Office did succeed in moving the premises of its embassy from the center of Rome — which admittedly was rather vulnerable — to converted old stables in the compound of Britain’s Embassy to Italy.

But British officials wanted to go even further and relocate the Holy See ambassador’s residence to an annex of the British ambassador to Italy’s residence, as well as starve the Vatican embassy of staff and resources. Those attempts failed, partly due to protests by the Vatican.

At the time, diplomats in Rome feared a precedent was being set and that other embassies would follow suit in a bid to cut costs.

In 2006, only Israel had both embassies on the same grounds. After Britain’s move, the Netherlands did the same, and Ireland closed its altogether, ostensibly because of the fallout over the clerical abuse scandals in the country.

Canadian Vacancy

But the most serious controversy doesn’t currently concern the U.S. or these other embassies, but, rather, the Canadian one.

Canada’s Embassy to the Holy See has been so downgraded recently that Ottawa is unable to find an ambassador willing to take up the position. One candidate was ready to take up the role, but when he heard what the terms were, he was said to be shocked at how basic they were.

For the past year, the mission has been without a serving ambassador and is currently being run by a charge d’affaires out of Madrid.

Rome’s diplomatic community sees the cutbacks as bizarre, especially because, in February, the Canadian government opened an Office for Religious Freedom. “It’s simply scandalous and very difficult to understand,” said one senior diplomatic source, “but it says something about Canada’s approach to foreign affairs.”

He also fears such actions point to a growing trend. “The Holy See needs to be careful this doesn’t catch on,” he said. “Some are predicting there won’t be any independent located embassies to the Holy See in 10 years’ time.”

All of which may partly explain why, after a relative fall in the Holy See’s diplomatic standing in recent years, Pope Francis is filling so many senior Curial positions with well-seasoned Vatican diplomats.

Comments

100% behind you—it is shameful that the Register has become the Catholic equivalent of Fox News.

The only recent trend has been that our Catholic faith has begun a process of being co-opted by the right-wing to justify its attacks against what it doesn’t agree with

Posted by Gavin Crowley on Saturday, Dec 7, 2013 6:57 PM (EST):

Ireland closed its embassy ostensibly to save money. Kicking the Holy See for the abuse scandal was the unstated subtext.

Ambassadors are accredited to the Holy See, not to the Vatican City State, because the Holy See is important, the City state is not. Who knows what sort of objectionable regime Italy might have at some point in the future that the Holy See would not like to be linked with. The Vatican State is linked to Italy - but is peripheral to the Holy See.

Posted by Frederick Bailey on Friday, Dec 6, 2013 2:59 AM (EST):

I do not believe anything anymore from the Obama administration and that includes John Kerry - Catholic or not. The president’s vacations cost more than the expense of running an embassy and as far as security just remember what happened in Benghazi - I really do not believe that would ever happen in Rome.

Because Catholics are fighting certain portions of ACA we now see typical Chicago style politics.

Posted by Mary Altorfer on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 8:08 PM (EST):

I’m afraid this website is as guilty of perpetrating lies as is the Republican Party. You all know that this move was initiated under the Bush administration, that it is going to save money, and most importantly, it’s going to keep Americans safe at the embassy. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a Catholic website is breaking the 8th commandment by bearing false witness. That you would not issue an apology for your incorrect interpretation is a shameful display of your hatred for the man in the White House by people who claim to be “righteous”.

Posted by M. Fury on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 7:10 PM (EST):

Read the second comment posted (from Phyllis). Since it seems the move of the embassy started with Bush, does that mean that Bush, too, was trying “diligently to separate the United States from anything Godly”??

Posted by william cavender on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 1:05 PM (EST):

I see letters commenting on articles in the NCR are increasingly those of the destroy the Catholic Church leftists.
No need to play their game by responding further.

Posted by Gary on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 1:03 PM (EST):

@ Larry Mandrell - I like your idea!

Posted by Mark Reid on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 12:34 PM (EST):

Manticore, if one can’t see the trend the Obama administration has set in the past few years in the way it views religion than one is blind. It’s no secret or misconception that Obama and “the powers that be” are trying diligently to separate the United States from anything Godly. Catholics are not searching for something to be offended about but rather opposing all that is being brought against us, just as our Lord Jesus Christ did in his time.

Posted by Rosanna on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 9:05 AM (EST):

Well spoken, Roberto.

Posted by Roberto Bacalski on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 8:44 AM (EST):

Y’all need to take a chill pill. Faith is not defined by the political relationships between institutions but by our personal relationship with God.

Posted by jenny on Monday, Dec 2, 2013 6:00 AM (EST):

Vivat Papa ! Leave the embassy where it is…...

Posted by samuel johnston on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 11:08 PM (EST):

I freely admit that I did not fact check the origin of American diplomacy with the Vatican.
Sorry, C.P. Barker. Nonetheless, as an old lawyer, I am not impressed by the stupefyingly legalistic argument of David G. The History of the unification of Italy is well known. The tiny remnant of a state know as Vatican City would be vanished tomorrow, but for its power as the center of the Catholic Church - allegedly, a religious institution. As a state, Monaco is much more important.

Posted by Prosser from the UK on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 1:57 PM (EST):

Obviously we can see this as serious, but from Obama’s point of view, he looks at things in a worldly way, such as the economic and military strengths of countries - which explains why he is so keen to work with China- exactly this same mental attitude guided Germany throughout the second world war. The important issue is for Churches to work together and for congregations to see the merit of what their churches offer. If the church leaders cannot persuade their own members to take their beliefs more seriously than the latest political or liberal in-thing to uphold, like divorce, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unfettered animal experimentation (look at how miserable as sin these issues are, which the worldly governments promote!) then obviously Obama and others will not see why they should recognize the Vatican or any other church authority. I am not saying this lightly, protestant churches also are losing grip on what matters in life. Standing up and being counted is not the same as acting wisely and neither does it matter what these government leaders think, it only matters what we do. Strange as it seems, remember the Holy Bible is all about Moses, king David, and Our Lord Jesus Christ but in political terms they were nobodies. Our Heavenly Father who is our God will answer our prayers is all that really counts, we must not think our worldly influences and strengths are what matter. God bless the church of believers worldwide. Christ shall come again and come soon.

Posted by Roger de Bourbon on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 1:36 PM (EST):

The American Embassy to the Holy See should be maintained in a separate building so as not be relegated to a secondary position. During WW2 FDR had a special envoy (Myron C.Taylor) which provided a valuable asset at that time. IIt would also be nice for America to establish Diplomatic relations with the Knights of Malta as do a 100 countries.

Posted by C.P. Barker on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 1:04 PM (EST):

Gentle reader: Someone is trying to re-write history. The USA had diplomatic relations with Vatican City when Ronald Regan was still making movies. Does the name Clair Booth-Luce (Time, Inc) ring a bell. come on, it is Advent, shed some light. Stop the Third Grade finger pointing. The word is Diplomacy and has nothing to do with “kissing up.” It has a lot to do with the break up of the Soviet Empire. I am glad I live in America, with all it’s faults, above as well as below ground. By the way, from the looks of the photo of our current property in Rome, a move might not be such a bad idea. Not too many Americans would want to call that dump home. Where is it located? Near the Nero city dump? May both governments continue to communicate to help solve many problems and foster peace throughout the world.

Posted by David G. on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 12:22 PM (EST):

Keith,Samuel Johnston,the reason I’m replying is that this site publishes a lot of misinformation, like the ones you seem to be implying without recognizing the difference between the Vatican Holy See and the Vatican City State. Vatican City, officially Vatican City State is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome. It has an area of approximately 110 acres, and a population of around 840. This makes Vatican City the smallest internationally recognized independent state in the world by both area and population. Check out the history of the Vatican States and you’ll see that at one time it was part of the Papal States that encompassed a majority of the current Italy State’s territory. It is NOT part of Rome or Italy - it is the Vatican State. The Vatican City State is distinct from the Holy See,dates back to early Christianity and is the main episcopal see of 1.2 billion Latin and Eastern Catholic adherents around the globe. The two entities have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country, issues only diplomatic and service passports, whereas Vatican City State issues normal passports for its citizens.

Posted by JMJ on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 12:00 PM (EST):

Come on: John Kerry a Catholic? Not if we had Bishops that weren’t afraid of ‘pope’ Ted Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, etc.. +JMJ+

Posted by Larry Mandrell on Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 11:51 AM (EST):

The U.S. Government wants to cut expenses, really?
“Close the UN building and make a parking lot out of it!

Posted by samuel johnston on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 8:38 PM (EST):

“The Catholic Church has more influence in the world than one country like the United States.”

Here we have the problem. The USA is a nation state. A religious institution is ...well,
not! In the case of the USA there is no national religion, and religion is left to the individual in law, and in fact. The USA had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican until Reagan. It was his mistake to change the policy. Any relations with the Catholic Church should be handled by whatever department deals with religious matters.

Posted by Jonathan Morse on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 12:34 PM (EST):

Yes, the relocation of the embassy does correspond to a recent trend. US Embassies are being relocated to new more secure larger buildings in Jamaica, Latvia, Serbia and Norway. If the Embassy to the Vatican is insufficient or lacks proper security, following these other examples, a new site should be selected and a new embassy built. The precedent has been set and the State Department should follow what it is doing elsewhere at the Vatican—move and build. To say that it will save $1.4 million is a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses. We could cut $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland; $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville; $150,000 for the Grammy Foundation, and $250,000 for sidewalk repairs in Boca Raton, Florida which brings in a million and maybe the President can throw in $400,000 by taking a vacation at Camp David. There is enough pork in the budget in comparison to the cost of keeping or even rebuilding and relocating the Vatican Embassy. Do we need 8 state department sites in Canada and 12 in Mexico? Or maybe the UN mission could share space with some other federal agency in New York City. So looking at the big picture (precedents) and the little picture (money) it seems there is another agenda going on here.

Posted by Rosanna on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 12:13 PM (EST):

I agree with Manticore, and that attitude is causing more divisiveness.

Posted by Keith on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 12:10 PM (EST):

The purpose of this change seems obvious. As our government says, it is for security reasons. This will avoid an attack on the few right thinking Americans at the Vatican by Catholic religious fanatics who are constantly attacking and threatening to attack good Americans loyal to our president who are devoted to tolerance and freedom from the hatred preached by the Catholic Church.

Posted by Paul E. Heuts on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 12:02 PM (EST):

It is actually my understanding that Canada is selling its embassy building in Rome and moving the Italian ambassador and his staff into Canada’s Vatican embassy. It’s an economy that makes perfect sense to me as having two embassies in what is essentially one city saves taxpayers’ money without reducing services. Is Canada downgrading its relationship with Italy because of it? I don’t think so. Of the two buildings, In Canada’s case the one at the Vatican made most sense to keep. The Italian embassy was in an historic property obtained as reparations from Italy at the end of WWII. It was expensive to maintain and not fit for today’s age. I wish more governments would husband taxpayers’ money this way.

Posted by David G. on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 11:49 AM (EST):

The US is downgrading itself. The Vatican is the one that the US should have ties to, not the other way around. The Catholic Church has more influence in the world than one country like the United States. This is just another one of the arrogant mistakes this US Government Administration has done over the past years in isolating itself from collaboration with others.

When this relationship with the Holy See was first established during the Reagan Administration, the State Department resisted as much as it could. Key players there had only contempt for President Reagan.

Judge William Clark and Ambassador-at-Large Vernon Walters, along with several key senators with whom I worked, overcame the State Department’s campaign, and and Bill Wilson became the first U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See in 1984.

The State Department lifers had only contempt for Wilson, too. But the position came to be indispensable for our foreign policy.

The relationship is so important that it should be expanded, not diminished. On that I agree with Ambassador Nicholson. But he is too coy with regard to the suffering Christians in the Middle East, implying that only Obama is to blame.

Obama is not alone in his casual disregard for this travesty. It was President Bush’s ill-considered invasion and occupation of Iraq that caused hundreds of thousands of Christians there to suffer, flee, even die. And then the anti-Christian pogroms spread throughout the Middle East.

I understand that Mr. Nicholson had a tough job, trying to defend Bush’s war in the Holy See, where Pope John Paul II stridently opposed the war. But that does not confer on him the right to rewrite history.

In fact, I hope that Mr. Nicholson will now undertake an even tougher job: to prod Mr. Bush to at least acknowledge publicly the disastrous effects of his wars on Christians in the Middle East.

I can find no mention anywhere of any expression even of condolence from Mr. Bush regarding the agony suffered by so many Middle Eastern Christians—an especially troubling silence, given the public image he fostered during his presidency as a devout Christian.

Where is Mr. Bush’s Christian compassion for his fellow Christians in the Middle East? Where is his apology?

Mr. Bush has been silent since the collapse of his party in 2008. He did appear on Jay Leno’s show recently, but the issue didn’t come up.

Perhaps Mr. Nicholson can ask him. If he is successful, I hope your reporter will ask him: does Mr. Bush realize what has happened to millions of Christians in the Middle East in the wake of his wars?

And did he apologize?

Lots to pray for.

Posted by Phyllis Muzeroll on Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 11:20 AM (EST):

From what I can gather, the idea to relocate the US embassy started with the Bush administration.

Posted by Manticore on Friday, Nov 29, 2013 6:40 PM (EST):

Britain has been cutting its expenses - or trying to - for some years: which is why “Britain downgraded its diplomatic presence in 2006”. The same course of action, for the same reasons, was followed when the British Council cut back its representation in a number of foreign countries. When money is short, cuts have to be made - and one of those cuts was in the UK’s representation to the Vatican. No slight to the Vatican was intended in 2006, so it is not clear why, when another nation does likewise, such an action should be seen as a slight. Does the NCRegister have solid reasons for thinking the current Administration in Washington intends a slight, when it has made as clear as it can that it does not ? If so, what are those grounds ? STM some Catholics are morbidly keen to find something to be offended by. That’s sad.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.